2021 (5) TMI 772 - HC - GST

Cancellation of registration of petitioner - validity of SCN - HELD THAT - The record presently available shows that prior to the issuance of the aforesaid order, a show cause notice dated 05.01.2021 was served on the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to file a reply to the same within seven working days from the date of service of the said notice - However, a perusal of the show cause notice shows that it is internally inconsistent. Mr. Mahana says, the authorized representative of the petitioner had appeared before the concerned officer pursuant to service of the show cause notice dated 05.01.2021 - issue notice to the respondents via all permissible modes including email. List the matter on 12.07.2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of time to file court fee.
2. Challenge to the cancellation of registration order.
3. Internal inconsistency in the show cause notice.
4. Procedure for suspension and cancellation of registration under Rule 21A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Extension of time to file court fee:
The petitioner sought an extension of time to file the court fee, which was granted subject to exceptions. The court directed the petitioner to deposit the requisite court fee within three days of the resumption of normal court operations.

Challenge to the cancellation of registration order:
The writ petition challenged the order dated 16.01.2021, where the petitioner's registration was cancelled by respondent no. 2. The petitioner was served a show cause notice on 05.01.2021, requiring a reply within seven working days. The notice stated that failure to respond would lead to an ex parte decision. The registration was suspended from 05.01.2021. However, the impugned order incorrectly stated that no reply was submitted, despite evidence to the contrary.

Internal inconsistency in the show cause notice:
The show cause notice was found to be internally inconsistent, as the impugned order mentioned no reply submitted by the petitioner, contrary to the actual reply dated 14.01.2021. This inconsistency raised questions about the fairness of the cancellation decision.

Procedure for suspension and cancellation of registration:
The petitioner's representative appeared before the concerned officer following the show cause notice. The petitioner argued that the registration should have been suspended first, as per Rule 21A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, before any decision on cancellation. The immediate cancellation without prior suspension was deemed improper by the petitioner's counsel.

In light of these issues, the court issued notice to the respondents and scheduled the matter for further hearing on 12.07.2021. The judgment highlighted procedural irregularities and inconsistencies in the cancellation of registration, emphasizing the importance of following due process and fair administrative actions in such matters.